Post-nuclear superweapons and other jokes

---

See the Lev Navrozov Archive By Lev Navrozov SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM Lev Navrozov emigrated from the Soviet Union in 1972 He settled in New York City where he quickly learned that there was no market for his eloquent and powerful English language attacks on the Soviet Union. To this day, he writes without fear or favor or the conventions of polite society. He chaired the "Alternative to the New York Times Committee" in 1980, challenged the editors of the New York Times to a debate (which they declined) and became a columnist for the New York City Tribune. His columns are today read in both English and Russian.

On Aug. 5, I received an amazing e-mail response to my "China threat" columns from a David Newland. Before then, I could not imagine, in a civilized democratic country having books, articles and electronic media, such a combination of stark geostrategic illiteracy and national megalomania.

The “Subject” of David Newland's e-mail is “Post-nuclear superwhat?” The very word “superweapons” seemed to him comical.

Well, with the blessing of the Spanish royalties, Christopher Columbus and other conquistadores as well as British colonialists conquered what was later named America because they had superweapons—at that time firearms—while the natives had only weapons that were conventional for them, such as tomahawks. David Newland cannot imagine that an outside civilization can develop superweapons with respect to the conventional U.S. weapons. Once the United States developed nuclear weapons, which were superweapons in 1945, these superweapons of 1945 will remain superweapons in 2005 and for ever. No outside civilization can develop today's superweapons compared with which the U.S. nuclear superweapons of 1945 will be as inferior as conventional bombs were, compared with nuclear superweapons of 1945.

For half a century, since the 1950s to the 1990s, the U.S. media repeated daily the phrase: “Mutual Assured Destruction.” In the 2000s I have been repeating it in my NewsMax.com and WorldTribune.com weekly columns. David Newland seems never to have heard of this phrase. He begins his e-mail: “If China launches anything at the U.S. from just offshore . . .” and then describes how the United States will destroy China in retaliation. Of course! But the inverse is also true! Yet David Newland never so much as hints that the hidden means of retaliation of Russia and of later China could and can retaliate and destroy the United States in Mutual Assured Destruction. In Newland's geostrategically illiterate megalomania, only other countries, but never the one in which he lives, can be destroyed in retaliation or in aggression.

He concludes:

So, if Chinese are so smart as you think they are, wouldn't they factor this [U.S. ability to destroy them as retaliation in Mutual Assured Destruction] into their long-term survival strategy?

To understand that a country retaliates if attacked provided it has its means of retaliation, it is not necessary to be smart. This is Mutual Assured Destruction, of which the Chinese military know because they are not geostrategically illiterate megalomaniacs like David Newland.

Indeed, the gist of the Chinese geostrategy is to circumvent Mutual Assured Destruction by developing post-nuclear superweapons, able to destroy the enemy means of (nuclear) retaliation.

David Newland continues:

Granted that they [the Chinese] are doing much better than thirty years ago, I have to believe that this success has gone completely to their heads if they think they can win a conventional or nuclear war with the U.S.

Let us suppose that in 1945 Japan far surpassed the United States in all weapons except superweapons of that time—atom bombs and means of their delivery. The result? The unconditional surrender of Japan. The dictators of China are going not to wage a conventional or nuclear war (which has also become conventional and, indeed, geostrategically obsolete as an aggressive war in the sixty years since 1945), but to be able to annihilate the West with post-nuclear superweapons they have been developing in the past thirty years—often at the expense of conventional weapons, which the Pentagon has been developing no one knows what for, for even in the small backward Iraq these developed conventional weapons are useless against Sunni guerrillas. Of course, the United States can destroy Iraq with nuclear weapons without any fear of retaliation, but certainly the Iraqi oil will perish in this holocaust, and what will then be the goal of the war?

David Newland may laugh at the very word “superweapons”—“superwhat?” Thus Japanese megalomaniacs could laugh at atom bombs before they fell on them, making irrelevant all Japanese conventional weapons and all conquests and all kamikaze attacks and the general ignorance in Japan of the U.S. development of atom bombs.

David Newland ends his e-mail as follows:

Until you manage to convince me otherwise with facts instead of assertions, I have no reason to regard the 'China threat' as being much more than a bluff, and a bluff of this magnitude is, well, very Chinese.

How could a Japanese convince his countrymen that the U.S. development of the atom bomb is “much more than a bluff, and a bluff of this magnitude is, well, very American”?

Speaking of the development of post-nuclear superweapons in China, I can at least quote sources like Major General Sun Bailin's article, “Nanotech Weapons in Future Warfare” in National Defense of June 15, 1995. I do not know a single American officer who would have published—between the day Einstein wrote his famous letter to Roosevelt in 1939 and the day two atom bombs were dropped on Japan in 1945—a similar article about nuclear weapons.

Nevertheless documents like Sun Bailin's article can be declared by David Newland to be not facts, but only descriptions. The only way to convince a Japanese David Newland that the U.S. development of the atom bomb was a fact would have been to steal an almost ready atom bomb and demonstrate to him how it works.

The case of China is far more complex: not one superweapon, but at least a dozen post-nuclear superweapons at various stages of development have to be stolen and brought to the United States to demonstrate them to David Newland and other such, for the U.S. government and U.S. Congress may refuse to attend the demonstration since this may damage the Sino-American relations, including trade and economic cooperation.

Simultaneously, the top Chinese officials with the dictator at the head should be kidnapped and also brought to the United States to testify in an American court as a witness under oath that the demonstrated post-nuclear superweapons are being developed not on Mars or in Iraq (by the Sunni), but in China.

Also on May 5, I received another noteworthy e-mail—from William C. H. Chao. Its “Subject” is “Question on the efficacy of molecular nano-weapons.”

I have been writing about molecular nano superweapons not because they (and no other superweapons) are likely to be used by the dictatorship of China to annihilate the United States and the West as a whole or enforce their unconditional surrender but because I have had the opportunity to compare the billions of dollars poured on their development in China and not a cent allocated by U.S. Congress to the Foresight Nanotech Institute, co-founded by Eric Drexler, the founders of nanotechnology in general and its military applications outlined, in particular, in a thirty-page chapter (“Engines of Destruction”) of his book, published in 1986, the year when the Chinese dictators founded Program 863 for the development of post-nuclear superweapons in seven fields.

But let us forget about all other fields in 1986 and thereafter and concentrate on molecular nano weapons. William C. H. Chao says in his e-mail:

Mr. Navrozov, I just read your article “Pentagon's Annual Report on China” and agree with your points. However, I have a fundamental question about such molecular nano-weapons. How do they differentiate who the good guys and bad guys are? What's to prevent them from becoming a Stephen King “Langolier” event when everything everywhere was devoured by such molecular nano-weapons? Including the Communist Chinese themselves? Do you know how they plan to limit the efficiency of such molecular nano-weapons to inflict only upon the “bad” guys?
Thanks.
Regards. . . . William C. H. Chao

William C. H. Chao's “fundamental question” can be linked to the natives of those non-European countries who heard of powder basic to European firearms. An arrow is directed by a bowman to the target (a bad guy), but powder just explodes hitting the good guys exploding it or standing nearby. Yet amazingly enough, Europeans were able to direct a bullet or a cannon shell more accurately than a bowman his arrow.

Let us read what Major Sun Bailin of the Chinese Academy of Military Science wrote in his article in National Defense of June 15, 1996:

At that time [in 1986] it was realized that by using advanced manufacturing technology used for large-scale integrated circuits, one could develop nano-scale [“nano” is one billionth of a meter] prototypes of large-scale mechanized systems. Hence a “technological revolution” was initiated advancing toward nano-scale electromechanical systems.

A nano weapon can be directed or direct itself just as large-scale weapons are directed or direct themselves, except that nano weapons can number billions and trillions, since they replicate themselves. In his book of 1986 Eric Drexler calls them programmable, computer-controlled artificial “germs.” On p. 174 he said:

A nuclear bomb can only blast things, but nanomachines could be used to infiltrate, seize, charge and govern a territory or a world.

Well, if nano superweapons fail to be developed in China, there are other fields of post-nuclear superweaponry, such as ethnically targeted bioweapons, able to discriminate among ethnic groups, and in this way all non-Chinese (the bad guys) can be put to death by the good guys (Chinese).